logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: will there be a parameterized message in log4j like it is in slf4j?
Date Sat, 03 Oct 2009 21:15:52 GMT
My 2 cents. I was given commit rights to log4j 2.0 and haven't done a  
thing. Mostly, that is because I have been working on getting the  
features I need into Logback and I simply haven't had the time to work  
on log4j.

Having said that, there are two issues I have had with Logback:
1. The license was LGPL. Ceki finally switched to a dual license of  
either the Eclipse Public License or the LGPL, with the user of the  
library getting to choose. So this issue is mostly taken care of.
2. The community. Ceki runs this project as a benevolent dictatorship.  
Although he is generally quite responsive it is still disturbing that  
he is the only individual that I know of with commit rights to the  
"official" repository. He recently switched to using GIT so it is easy  
to create a fork, but getting changes back to the "official"  
distribution requires Ceki to do the work. Personally, I would be a  
lot more comfortable if there were at least 3 people with commit rights.

OTOH, where I would want to take Log4j 2.0 is pretty much were Logback  
is today, so I'm not sure whether the effort is really worth it. And  
as long as 1.2 has a minimum JDK version less than 1.5 I don't really  
see how some of these issues can effectively be dealt with. For  
example, some of the more serious issues required using  
java.util.concurent.

Ralph

On Oct 3, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Scott Deboy wrote:

> Although log4j 1.3 was abandoned, it's fair to say log4j 2.0 hasn't  
> gotten off the ground either, not sure it ever will.
>
> I agree, logmf is not a good option, this feature needs to be in the  
> core logging framework.
>
> I think that leaves us with the option of adding useful features to  
> the current 1.2 codebase, even if it affects backward  
> compatibility.  Time for the log4j committers & interested users to  
> voice their opinions on 'the future of log4j'.
>
> As for Antonio's patches, thanks for providing them.  I've applied  
> them to my working copy and I'll commit them if everything goes ok.
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Antonio Petrelli <antonio.petrelli@gmail.com 
> > wrote:
> 2009/10/3 leif <leif.hanack@hypoport.de>:
> > do you plan to "backport" the parameterized message feature of  
> slf4j to log4j?
> > we are using log4j and a switch to slf4j seems unneeded.
>
> IMHO this is a contradiction: if you need this feature, you need to
> use slf4j or wait for a looong time.
> You could try writing a patch but don't expect to be applied soon. I
> filed 4 bugs with patches, the oldest is from the end of July, and
> nobody applied them, nor someone tried to review the patch.
> So my suggestion is to, at least, leave native log4j and move over
> slf4j. The best solution, IMHO, is to move to LogBack.
>
> Ciao
> Antonio
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
>


Mime
View raw message